zlacker

>>ceejay+(OP)
To be honest, this seems like a pretty reasonable search; a warranted search, narrowly scoped in both keywords (a specific address) and timeframe.

Meanwhile, this:

> “If Google is allowed or required to turn over information in this Colorado case, there is nothing to stop a court in a state that has outlawed abortion to also require Google to turn over information on that kind of keyword search.”

seems like it's of entirely different magnitude, far less amenable to such a narrow scope.

>>ceejay+i6
If the requirement to be narrow and time limited is not codified in law (which afaik it is not) it is pretty much guaranteed such broad searches will happen. All it takes is convincing a judge.

If the past has taught us anything it's that law enforcement will use any tool to the maximium of what is allowed and then beyond (e.g. coerced phone searches, racially motivated stop and search, drug dogs to force vehicle searches, privately sourced licence plate tracking and face recognition, criminal DNA testing from rape kits, forced biometric collection and more).

>>lin83+49
It is codified, in the Fourth Amendment.

> no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Legally, the term is "particularity".

>>ceejay+I9
What makes you think the fourth will be any more resilient to the 6-3 than the fourteenth, the fifth, or the first?

>>vkou+0R
Oh, nothing, but that’s kind of a different (and larger) issue.